共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
高Altmetrics指标科技论文学术影响力研究 总被引：9，自引：0，他引：9
引入"公平性测试"方法以消除时间窗口对被引次数的影响。以高Altmetrics指标论文作为样本,选取与样本论文发表在同一期刊同一期上前后两篇论文作为参照。利用Altmetric.com、Web of Science分别获取273篇样本及参照论文的Altmetric分数、底层数据值和被引用次数。通过比较分析后发现:Altmetrics和引文数两种指标反映出读者对文献的不同关注方向,底层数据源中大众媒体对于Altmetric分数的影响最明显,高Altmetrics指标论文同时具有较高的学术影响力。作为一种早期指标,高Altmetrics指标在一定程度上能够被视作文章在未来获得高被引的风向标。 相似文献
2.
[目的/意义] 研究Altmetrics指标的主要特征及其与传统文献计量指标的相关性,以及它们随时间的演化情况;同时,基于Altmetrics指标全面评价学术论文的社会影响力和学术影响力,对于发展和完善Altmetrics计量系统至关重要。[方法/过程] 以2014-2016年Altmetric Top 100论文为样本,对每年的高Altmetrics指标论文的来源期刊、学科分布、获取方式、作者地域及研究机构分布进行统计分析,并讨论这些论文的社会影响力,同时对论文的Altmetric分数与其Web of Science上的被引频次进行相关性分析,研究相关性随时间的动态演化。[结果/结论] 研究结果表明,高Altmetrics指标论文主要来源于一些高影响因子期刊,其学科主要集中于医疗健康与生物科学,论文作者主要来自于欧美发达国家的高水平研究机构,且高Altmetrics指标论文中开放及自由获取的比例逐年增加;Altmetric分数能够定量地反映学术论文在社交和新闻媒体上被公众关注的程度,从而在一定程度上体现出学术论文的社会影响力;高Altmetrics指标论文的Altmetric分数与其被引频次存在一定正相关,表明高Altmetrics指标论文同时具有较高的学术影响力。 相似文献
3.
Using data from Web of Science, this research investigates how physical science researchers funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research complied with its open access policy, and compares the citation counts of articles published through gold and green models.It was found that, for articles published between 2008 and 2015, 9% were available through gold open access routes and 13% were available through green routes; most were not openly accessible. Citation rates were comparable for green open access and non-open access articles, but citation rates for gold open access articles were lower. After controlling for publication year, citation rates of gold, green, and non-open access articles were comparable. Among gold open access articles, citation rates were highest for open access journals with article processing charges, but after controlling for publication year, articles published in hybrid journals, followed by those in open access journals with article processing charges, achieved the highest citation rates. Articles published in free open access journals had the lowest citation rates. The results suggest that green open access is the most economical approach to comply with open access policies, and that it provides researchers with at least as much research impact as gold open access. 相似文献
4.
作为衡量新型影响力的计量方法,Altmetrics的出现引起了科技评价领域的广泛讨论。研究影响高Altmetrics指标论文的特征因素及其演变情况,可为合理使用Altmetrics指标提供借鉴,为发展和完善Altmetrics计量方法提供参考。因此,本文选取Altmetric Top 100论文作为研究样本,对比分析2013-2018年6年的高Altmetrics指标论文的时间分布、期刊分布、研究领域分布以及多源指标贡献度的演变情况。研究结果表明,高Altmetrics指标论文的网络关注度大体上逐年上升,并主要发表在Nature、Science、PNAS等10种高影响力期刊上,分布于医学健康科学、生物科学等8个研究领域。在多项Altmetrics指标中,News、Blogs以及Twitter表现出显著优势。 相似文献
5.
Jingfeng XIA 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(1):69-74
This study examines the payment policies of a list of standalone predatory open access journals available on scholarlyoa.com . It is found that 72% do charge article publication fees (APCs), which is a higher percentage than found in DOAJ journals. The mean number of articles published during 2013 was 227, but ranged from 4 to 2,286 articles. The majority of journals charge low APCs and can be assumed to have modest annual incomes. There was no correlation between the amount of APC charged and the number of articles published. Comparing the number of journals charging APCs compared to the percentage from DOAJ, the findings suggest a connection between predatory practices and charging author fees. However, a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of open access journal publishing beyond author charges should be done to avoid using APCs alone as a measure of whether a journal is predatory or not. 相似文献
6.
Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007–2012: a bibliometric study 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 This paper presents the bibliometric characteristics of 32 biomedical open access journals published by Academic Journals and International Research Journals – the two Nigerian publishers in Jeffery Beall's list of 23 predatory open access publishers in 2012. Data about the journals and the authors of their articles were collected from the websites of the publishers, Google Scholar and Web of Science. As at December 2012, the journals had together produced a total of 5,601 papers written by 5,599 authors, and received 12,596 citations. Authors from Asia accounted for 56.79% of the publications; those from Africa wrote 28.35% while Europe contributed 7.78%. Authors from Africa accounted for 18.25% of the citations these journals received, and this is about one‐third the number of citations by authors in Asia (54.62%). At country level, India ranks first in the top 10 citer countries, while Nigeria, the host country of the journals, ranked eighth. More in‐depth studies are required to develop further information about the journals such as how much scientific information the journals contain, as well as the science literacy of the authors and the editorial. 相似文献
7.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(1):102484
Although there are at least six dimensions of journal quality, Beall's List identifies predatory Open Access journals based almost entirely on their adherence to procedural norms. The journals identified as predatory by one standard may be regarded as legitimate by other standards. This study examines the scholarly impact of the 58 accounting journals on Beall's List, calculating citations per article and estimating CiteScore percentile using Google Scholar data for more than 13,000 articles published from 2015 through 2018. Most Beall's List accounting journals have only modest citation impact, with an average estimated CiteScore in the 11th percentile among Scopus accounting journals. Some have a substantially greater impact, however. Six journals have estimated CiteScores at or above the 25th percentile, and two have scores at or above the 30th percentile. Moreover, there is considerable variation in citation impact among the articles within each journal, and high-impact articles (cited up to several hundred times) have appeared even in some of the Beall's List accounting journals with low citation rates. Further research is needed to determine how well the citing journals are integrated into the disciplinary citation network—whether the citing journals are themselves reputable or not. 相似文献
8.
[目的/意义] 探讨开放同行评议（OPR）对期刊论文的引文及社会关注度的影响。[方法/过程] 采用描述性统计及配对样本非参数检验方法，比较OPR与非OPR期刊在期刊年龄、SCI年龄、国别、出版周期、开放存取、评审透明度级别、论文引文及社会关注度指标上的差异，探索期刊一般特征对OPR期刊论文引文及社会关注度指标的影响，检验OPR期刊论文引文与社会关注度指标间的相关关系。[结果/结论] OPR期刊论文有显著的引文与社会关注度优势。国别对引文指标有显著影响，出版周期对引文及社会关注度均有显著影响。OPR期刊论文的引文指标与社会关注度指标显著正相关。 相似文献
9.
Altmetrics from Altmetric.com are widely used by publishers and researchers to give earlier evidence of attention than citation counts. This article assesses whether Altmetric.com scores are reliable early indicators of likely future impact and whether they may also reflect non-scholarly impacts. A preliminary factor analysis suggests that the main altmetric indicator of scholarly impact is Mendeley reader counts, with weaker news, informational and social network discussion/promotion dimensions in some fields. Based on a regression analysis of Altmetric.com data from November 2015 and Scopus citation counts from October 2017 for articles in 30 narrow fields, only Mendeley reader counts are consistent predictors of future citation impact. Most other Altmetric.com scores can help predict future impact in some fields. Overall, the results confirm that early Altmetric.com scores can predict later citation counts, although less well than journal impact factors, and the optimal strategy is to consider both Altmetric.com scores and journal impact factors. Altmetric.com scores can also reflect dimensions of non-scholarly impact in some fields. 相似文献
10.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2023,49(4):102734
This research provides insight into the complex relationship between open access, funding, and citation advantage. It presents an analysis of research articles and their citations in the Scopus database across 40 subject categories. The sample includes 12 categories from Health Sciences, 7 from Life Sciences, 10 from Physical Sciences & Engineering, and 11 from Social Sciences & Humanities. Specifically, the analysis focuses on articles published in 2016 and the citations they received from 2016 to 2020. Our findings show that open access articles published in hybrid journals receive considerably more citations than those published in gold open access journals. Articles under the hybrid gold modality are cited on average twice as much as those in the gold modality, regardless of funding. Furthermore, we found that funded articles generally obtain 50 % more citations than unfunded ones within the same publication modality. Open access repositories significantly increase citations, particularly for articles without funding. Thus, articles in open access repositories receive 50 % more citations than paywalled ones. 相似文献
11.
基于开放牛津期刊的开放获取引用优势分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
本文以"开放牛津"的93种混合型期刊为研究样本,对其2009年刊载的全部论文的被引频次进行统计分析,以验证关于开放获取引用优势(OACA)的三个假设:存在开放获取引用优势;不同学科的OACA不同;OACA与期刊影响因子有相关性。通过研究发现:开放牛津期刊存在OACA,开放牛津期刊中的OA论文与非OA论文相比有138.87%的引用优势;五个学科领域的开放牛津期刊的OACA存在差异(其中人文科学不存在OACA);开放获取引用优势与期刊影响因子之间具有显著的逆函数关系,即随着期刊影响因子的增长,开放获取引用优势呈下降趋势。 相似文献
12.
13.
The study explores the publication trends of scholarly journal articles in two core Library and Information Science (LIS) journals indexed under ScienceDirect Database during the period for the period 2000–2010, and for the “Top 25 Hottest Papers” for 2006–2010. It examines and presents an analysis of 1000 research papers in the area of LIS published in two journals: The International Information & Library Review (IILR) and Library & Information Science Research (LISR). The study examines the content of the journals, including growth of the literature, authorship patterns, geographical distributions of authors, distribution of papers by journal, citation pattern, ranking pattern, length of articles, and most cited authors. Collaboration was calculated using Subramanyam's formula, and Lotka's law was used to identify authors' productivity. The results indicated that authors' distributions did not follow Lotka's law. The study identified the eight most productive authors with a high of 19 publications in this field. The findings indicate that these publications experienced rapid and exponential growth in literature production. The contributions by scientists from India are examined. 相似文献
14.
The study explores the publication trends of scholarly journal articles in two core Library and Information Science (LIS) journals indexed under ScienceDirect Database during the period for the period 2000–2010, and for the “Top 25 Hottest Papers” for 2006–2010. It examines and presents an analysis of 1000 research papers in the area of LIS published in two journals: The International Information & Library Review (IILR) and Library & Information Science Research (LISR). The study examines the content of the journals, including growth of the literature, authorship patterns, geographical distributions of authors, distribution of papers by journal, citation pattern, ranking pattern, length of articles, and most cited authors. Collaboration was calculated using Subramanyam's formula, and Lotka's law was used to identify authors' productivity. The results indicated that authors' distributions did not follow Lotka's law. The study identified the eight most productive authors with a high of 19 publications in this field. The findings indicate that these publications experienced rapid and exponential growth in literature production. The contributions by scientists from India are examined. 相似文献
15.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2019,45(5):102056
BackgroundThe number of predatory journals is constantly growing and creating a major threat. Researchers in biomedical sciences should be aware of predatory publishers and be able to recognize them.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to assess biomedical researchers' knowledge about predatory journals both before and after showing them an infographic explaining these journals and their publishing model.MethodsThis study was conducted with a sample of biomedical researchers and students. Subjects answered two questionnaires, one before explaining a designed infographic to each participant through a direct face-to-face interview.ResultsA total of 158 participants were included in this study, with a mean age of 22.6 (±1.72) years. They were 122 (77.2%) undergraduates and 36 (22.8%) graduate students. The median number of research projects our subjects participated in was 1 (0–5), and the median number of published projects was 0 (0–3). Awareness of predatory journals or Beall's List improved from 7% and 2.5%, respectively, before the infographic to 97.5% and 94.9% after the infographic.ConclusionOur results indicate the beneficial use of the designed infographic to improve young researchers' awareness of predatory journals. We encourage research institutions and universities to effectively spread awareness of predatory journals. 相似文献
16.
This article presents a citation analysis of articles published in 2011 from 11 kinesiology journals. The results of the citation analysis of 11 kinesiology journals are compared to a citation analysis of articles published in 2011 by faculty in the School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan. Comparing the four areas of kinesiology, Movement Science, Athletic Training, Sports Management, and Physical Education, the results show that articles published in Movement Science and Athletic Training cited a higher percentage of journal articles than articles published in Sports Management and Physical Education. While some of the materials cited went as far back as 1874, the mean age ranged from 1996 to 2004. Human Kinetics was the most cited publisher and the American Journal of Sports Medicine was the most cited journal. The University of Michigan Library owns 75% of the materials cited in the publications cited by School of Kinesiology faculty. Faculty in the School of Kinesiology cited many textbooks, a format not actively collected by the library before this analysis. 相似文献
17.
Serhat Kurt 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):141-147
This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals. 相似文献
18.
[目的/意义] 研究Altmetrics热点论文的传播特性,阐释学术内容的学术影响力和社会影响力。[方法/过程] 以www.altmetric.com热点论文的数据为基础,双向分析热点论文的Altmetrics分值与Web of Science被引次数的相关性,并讨论其传播渠道的多样性、传播主体的分布以及学术内容在社交媒体的传播影响。[结果/结论] 学科的差异影响Altmetrics与传统引文分析的相关性。公众为学术内容社交传播的主体,科学家利用社交媒体推广学术内容的比例呈逐年增长趋势。热点论文在Twitter上的传播一般在10-30d达到峰值,影响其传播的因素主要包括：学术传播内容的显著性和新奇性、学术传播的内需、开放获取、学术内容的营销途径等。虽然Altmetrics有速度和广度的优势,但也存在理论方法缺失、认知程度不高、数据质量较低、商业驱动浓厚、容易博弈等缺点。 相似文献
19.
《Legal Reference Services Quarterly》2013,32(2-3):99-112
Abstract Several studies have compared the frequency of citation to law reviews, comparing citation rates for all or most law reviews being published at the time of the study. This article compares the citation rates of general law reviews published by seven public law schools in close geographic proximity. The results show that citation rates are influenced by several factors, including whether articles published by the journals have a state or national focus, the subject matter of the articles, and whether articles are published as part of symposia. 相似文献
20.
This study determined how useful Google Scholar (GS) is for the evaluation of non‐English journals based on a sample of 150 Chinese journals listed in the Report on Chinese Academic Journals Evaluation of Research Center for Chinese Science Evaluation (2013–2014). This study investigated two disciplines: Library, Information & Documentation Science and Metallurgical Engineering & Technology. We collected data from GS and the Chongqing VIP database to evaluate GS as a citation database for Chinese journals on its resource coverage, journal ranking, and citation data. We found that GS covered 100% of the sample journals but indexed 22% more article records than the number of articles published. The ranking of Chinese journals by GS Metrics was not suitable to present a dependable ranking of Chinese journals. GS appeared suitable to provide an alternative source of Chinese citation data, even though there existed coverage problems, including article duplication and citation omission and potential duplication. The GS Metric average citation provided results highly correlated to traditional citation results, showing that it would be suitable for evaluating Chinese journals. 相似文献